Sunday, May 31, 2009

Doctor Murdered by Terrorists

Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita-based gynecologist who ran one of only two clinics in the state of Kansas that perform abortions, was shot outside Reformation Lutheran Church this morning.

The police have a suspect, Scott Roeder from Merriam, Kansas. (Merriam is a suburb of Kansas City, Kansas, neighboring the one in which I live).

Dr. Tiller has been shot at before: in 1993, the anti-abortion activist Shelley Shannon shot him twice, but he survived. His clinic is frequently picketed, and he's also been subjected to intense scrutiny by former Kansas attorney general Phill Kline, who seized the medical records of Tiller's patients to look for evidence of sexual abuse of underage girls --- this was seen by many people, including me, as a pretext to harrass Tiller and possibly close down his clinic, since an abortion clinic is hardly the only place one would look for underage rape victims, yet it seems to be the only context in which he mentioned this personal quest.If I have anything substantive to say about this good, brave man's murder, it is this: There is no difference between the people who did this (and who bomb abortion clinics and stalk, harrass and murder doctors nation- and worldwide) and the Islamic terrorists who are supposed to be The Enemy.

16 comments:

Isn't it awfully contradictory to the "pro-life" cause to kill someone? I seem to remember a George Carlin quote on the matter. Something along the lines of (paraphrasing) "If you're not born yet, they're very concerned with you. If you're born, well... they don't care about you anymore."

There is absolutely nothing good or brave about people who murder babies for a living. If they were brave, they would become serial killers like anyone else, instead of finding a way to commit mass murder legally.

No, it isn't "awfully contradictory," though this is an illogical and selfish thing abortionists often say, which illustrates well their incredible arrogance. They think they should be allowed to kill (for selfish reasons) as many people as they like), yet suddenly decide it is horribly wrong for someone to kill (for selfless reasons) one of them.

Killing a mass murderer prevents them from going on to murder tens of thousands more times.

One major difference between the "Islamic Enemy" and the "people who did this" is that Al-Qaeda usually kill just anyone, at random, like abortionists do, but in this particular case, no innocent people were killed, only the perpetrator.

I find it appalling that anyone could fail to recognize the actual arrogance and self-importance of people who think it is all right, and even admirable and brave, to kill thousands, but that if anyone tries to do it back to them, this is somehow a crime.

It is obvious that the person who kills thousands indiscriminately is the terrorist, not the person who tries to stop them.

I think that all those who are against abortion, shouldn't have one. And they should mind their own business and let others make their own decisions. Because it's a FREE country, that is the only acceptable outcome, in the end.

It can only be a person's own decision to kill themselves. Killing their children can never be anyone's own decision. There are exceptions, like helping someone who actually wants to die, but an abortion is not such a case. It is not done for the sake of the victim but, like most other crimes, for the convenience of the offender.

A country where your mother is allowed to murder you hardly seems very free.

I'm always torn when I get trolled --- do I ignore it and leave a bunch of questions hanging, do I delete the trollish comments and be a speech-suppressing meanie head, or do I engage with the troll and waste my time addressing very basic questions with a person who probably won't even accept my premises (let alone my entire argument!) as valid, and in the meantime make this blog even less of a feminist/autistic safe space than it already is?

To LindsayThe problem with being a progressive person has always been attempting to answer such questions. I am assuming that you are talking about "White Horse"'s comments. The problem with these "Pro-Birth"fascists is that there is no way to reason with them. In their mind, the instant a sperm enters an egg, the resulting zygote becomes a "person" with a "soul". The reality that about 50% never survive never enters their obsessed mind. The fact that such a dim witted and fascistic view comes from a patriarchal religious women hating view does not matter to them. At a Pro-Choice demonstration, held as a counter to a "Pro-Birth" one, the "Pro-Birth" people screamed at us "Pro-Choice" people that we were violent murderers, and 2 people were injured - Me, kicked in the groin by a right-wing political candidate, and another guy, who had his nose broken by a Catholic Priest. We both refused to press charges, which turn out to be a mistake as the media reports on the incident was done in such a way as to make us "Pro-Choice" people look like we had caused the violence. White Horse fits the pattern of an unreasonable fanatic, and allowing such people to make their absurd comments just enables them.The reality of the question is, should women have the right to control their own health care, and thus their own body. As a human ape, I demand that as the natural right for all my sisters, blood related (I have 5 sisters), or not.Ultimately though, the choice to delete or not is yours.

Because I can, and because I *DO* actually accept that abortion means letting someone die, I think I will engage with this troll.

(Clay has already started doing so, anyway, so I might as well help him out!)

Okay. First, even granting for the moment that abortion is just like, say, shooting somebody, it's more like killing someone in self-defense than it is like stalking and killing a stranger in cold blood. (This is especially true for the very late-term abortions Tiller performed, which are almost always done because a wanted pregnancy goes horribly wrong, endangering both mother and child).

Second, I would further argue that abortion is not so much a matter of killing as of letting die. The philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson proposes a series of analogies here that help illustrate what moral principles are, and aren't, at stake.

Wikipedia defines the word as "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevent or off-topic messages (....) with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

It is not my "primary intent" to provoke or disrupt anything. I am commenting on a blog, like everyone else.

Get lost, Billy, the jig is up. I think every blogger should go through their archives and delete every stupid thing you've ever said, but that would probably be too much trouble to go to for a wanker like you. But they could START deleting you, as of NOW!

A Portrait of the Autist

I'm a recent KU graduate with degrees in biochemistry and English lit. I'm also on the autism spectrum, having been diagnosed with PDD-NOS at age 5. It's quite likely that, were I to be seen now, I'd be diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.
I write about a lot of things, which include but are not limited to: autism research, psychology, neuroscience, feminism, autism advocacy/neurodiversity, autism in literature, and broad, sweeping cultural critique. I also draw, paint and take the occasional random picture.
Spam and abusive comments meet the icy-cold fury of my deleting finger.

Recommended Reading

These are books I've read that I thought worthy of recommendation; it's not meant to be an exhaustive reading list in any topic. I will add to it as I discover more books I think people need to read.

Because I believe that true freedom of thought is incompatible with a world where all our books, opinions, news and entertainment comes from the same handful of corporations, I have linked to independent bookstores whenever I could.